In State of U.P. and Another v. Kamla Palace, (2000) 1 SCC 557, this Court, while considering a fiscal statute in relation to Article 14 of the Constitution, has stated as under:
“11. Article 14 does not prohibit reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions by the legislature for the purpose of attaining specific ends. To satisfy the test of permissible classification, it must not be “arbitrary, artificial or evasive” but must be based on some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislature. (See Special Courts Bill, 1978, Re, seven-Judge Bench; R.K. Garg v. Union of India, five-Judge Bench.)
It was further held in R.K. Garg case that laws relating to economic activities or those in the field of taxation enjoy a greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion etc. Such a legislation may not be struck down merely on account of crudities and inequities inasmuch as such legislations are designed to take care of complex situations and complex problems which do not admit of solutions through any doctrinaire approach or straitjacket formulae…”.
20. Further, in S.K. Dutta, Income Tax Officer v. Lawrence Singh Ingty, (1968) 2 SCR 165, the Constitution Bench of this court held as under: “8. It is not in dispute that taxation laws must also pass the test of Article 14. That has been laid down by this Court in Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala. But as observed by this Court in East India Tobacco Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, in deciding whether a taxation law is discriminatory or not it is necessary to bear in mind that the State has a wide discretion in selecting persons or objects it will tax, and that a statute is not open to attack on the ground that it taxes some persons or objects and not others; it is only when within the range of its selection, the law operates unequally, and that cannot be justified on the basis of any valid classification, that it would be violative of Article 14.
It is well settled that a State does not have to tax everything in order to tax something. It is allowed to pick and choose districts, objects, persons, methods and even rates for taxation if it does so reasonably.”
21. In State of A.P. and Others v. Nallamilli Rami Reddi and Others, (2001) 7 SCC 708, this Court held:
“8. What Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits is “class legislation” and not “classification for purpose of legislation”. If the legislature reasonably classifies persons for legislative purposes so as to bring them under a well-defined class, it is not open to challenge on the ground of denial of equal treatment that the law does not apply to other persons. The test of permissible classification is twofold:
(i) that the classification must be founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons grouped together from others who are left out of the group, and
ii) that differentia must have a rational connection to the object sought to be achieved. Article 14 does not insist upon classification, which is scientifically perfect or logically complete. A classification would be justified unless it is patently arbitrary. If there is equality and uniformity in each group, the law will not become discriminatory, though due to some fortuitous circumstance arising out of peculiar situation some included in a class get an advantage over others so long as they are not singled out for special treatment…”
